At ano ngayon kung ideolohikal si Sarah? Kung totoong liberal ang UP, dapat bigyan siya ng puwang, bilang isang national democrat. Nagkalat sa UP ang mga nagtatrabaho sa militar, sa gobyerno. Bakit hindi taken against them ang ideolohiya nila?

the academe is an ideology in itself. sociology is infinitely ideological, otherwise it wouldn’t survive as a discipline. without ideology, there would be no critical discourse, which reminds us that a critical perspective is always necessarily ideological as well. your critical perspective in this comment defines your ideology, as my response to you does.

the issue here is not so much that sarah’s ideology but the sociology department’s, and yes, randy david’s.

Magkaiba yata kami ng inside information na nakuha. Pakiramdam ko, mas accurate ang kanya: Abstain kaysa No. Pero itanong ko rin ulit.

linawin din natin: noong una’y bumoto si prof. david IN FAVOR of giving sarah tenure. nang mataranta ang natalong minority sa first decision na yon — the only decision that should hold water even at this point — naging ABSTAIN ang boto ni prof. david.

ang paliwanag raw sa botong abstain na ito ni prof. david ay ang bigyan ng chance si sarah na makapagturo pa for one year, without tenure, insinuating na magiging under probation si sarah.

pray tell, why would a professor who has met all requirements for tenure, who has proven her worth and mettle for almost 10 years in the department of sociology, be put under probation?

and yes, what makes this much much worse is the fact that sarah herself is left in the dark about the reasons for both prof. david’s decision to abstain, and the minority’s refusal to give her tenure.

what has been used as a reason for the re-vote and the refusal to tenure sarah has been her activism. is there a piece of paper that says this outright? no. for really, would the socio department of u.p. diliman admit to being anti-left? would any sociology department have the temerity to say we don’t like her because she’s an activist of a different color from us? not at all.

tenure is NOT won. the tenure process is NOT a contest. one is judged based on a set of criteria that are clearly listed in the faculty manual. what this presumes is that the members of the socio department’s tenured faculty agree with the criteria set by the university, and that they will vote yes, as a matter of pride in their own faculty member’s achievements.

this didn’t happen for sarah. and it is the responsibility of the socio department that’s NOW headed by prof. david, to at the very least explain why.

and as current chair, prof. david has the responsibility and the prerogative to look into sarah’s case, see it as unjust, and decide to uphold the first votation that was in favor of tenure. it is even just his prerogative at this point to uphold Chancellor Cao’s and the CSSP Dean’s recommendations for tenure.

the question then isn’t HOW prof. david’s connected to this tenure case. it’s WHY he has yet to do anything about it.

Sorry, na-late sumagot.

Hindi siya ang dating department chair. Nitong huli na lang. Siya ang magpapatupad ng “desisyon” ng departamento.

Oo, sa kanya galing ang mode na 2/3 votes ng lahat ng faculty ng department ang dapat makuha ni Sarah. Walang ganyan dati.

Pwedeng dahil pa rin kay Dr. Aquino — na talagang tumutol sa pag-tenure kay Sarah — pero mas ang nagpapatupad ay si David.

@ Sparks:

Wala ngang kwestyon sa mga bagay na sinasabi mo tungkol kay Sarah. Wala, walang magsasabing tinatanggal siya dahil radikal siya. Naghahanap sila ng dahilan. Pero insiders mismo ang nagsasabing pabagu-bago sila ng dahilan sa talakayan. Pero alam mo sa buong CSSP, halos si Prop. Raymundo lang ang NatDem! Iyan ang tinatawag mong kritikal na akademya! Hindi nila sinasabi ang dahilan — pero lumutang sa blog mo ang isang ispekulasyon (na ni hindi mo sinasagot) na may kinalaman si Sarah sa radikal na aktibidad ng mga estudyante niya, na hindi totoo. Sa blog ko, parang pinapalabas mong ako o ang mga NatDem ang may monopolyo sa katotohanan. Focus muna tayo sa isyu: Asaan ang proseso ng pag-alam sa katotohanan sa isyung ito? Ni hindi alam ni Prop. Raymundo ang dahilan kung bakit siya tinatanggal — after teaching in the department for almost 10 years! Collegiality? Galing ano?

Siguro maganda yun puntong dapat me transparency talaga para hindi nakabitin sa hangin ang lahat pero si Prof. David lang ba talaga ang susi para maging malinaw ang usaping ito?

to me, its clear that something weird happened in the tenure case. from the original decision of yes (with a large majority), the minority complained, and then there was a slight majority yes, but this is not enough to garner tenure.

its the responsibility of david thats not clear. from raymundo’s timeline, it seems that he was just the OIC at the time. it also seems that he tried to help her (by telling her about the situation)

hopefully teo might know more details beyond the timeline.

it is implied that prof. raymundo’s only fault is that she is an activist and that her tenure has been refused solely on these grounds. is there no question regarding her professionalism, integrity, competence etc.?

second, is it not the prerogative of the sociology dept as a whole to choose who would win tenure? and those up in arms in the UP community are claiming that the process has not been clear as to why prof raymundo has apparently been rejected? are there no accounts specifically saying she has been rejected because she is “too radical?”

third, it has been mentioned that prof. david can overturn the decision of the majority…that doesn’t sound right to me.

“Kung ang isang kwalipikadong guro ay hindi mo mabigyan ng hustisya, paano pa kaya ang milyon-milyong pinagkaitan ng kasalukuyang rehimen? Nasaan ang panawagan mo para sa government transparency kung ang mismong departamento mo’y pinagkakaitan ng impormasyon si Prop. Raymundo kaya hindi niya masagot ang anumang paratang sa kanya? Bakit ang paninindigan ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya tungkol sa kaso ni Prop. Raymundo ay hindi naiiba sa nakabibinging katahimikang ipinapakita ng Pangulong nais mong kalabanin?”

yon pala ang laban. oo nga naman. tsk! tsk! tsk!

david wasn’t the chair right? he was the officer in charge. isn’t that different? doesn’t that mean david is constrained by what he can do…

a fishy thing about this tenure process is this paragraph: “A few weeks later, I was called on by Dr. Joy Arguillas in her capacity as OIC and Dr. Ging Candaliza-Gutierrez as member of the tenured body to inform me that the tenured faculty voted, with five in my favor, four against, one abstention, and one in favor of waiving the discussion for a year. They added that since the vote was “deeply divided,” the tenured body decided to defer their decision and thus left it to your esteemed office to decide on granting my tenure, after which, my tenure application and the department vote were discussed by the CEB.”

note, 5-4 in favor of tenure, but thats not enough to do it. is this the 2/3s rule? in the event the the voting doesnt pass the 2/3s rule, the admin (UP admin chancelor cao) was called upon to intervene.

so teo, before, the rule was simple majority, and then the OIC (not chair) david changed the rule to 2/3s? this wasn’t due to Dr. Aquino (the actual chair at the time?)

@ina

here’s my point: the number of articles, student reviews, etc — they are all measurable. once measured, they are not up to discussion; either you make the standard or you don’t

if its all up to these standards, then there is no need for a vote. the question becomes, why vote? the quick answer is what you said: there is a personal/political thing when you want to be a member of a group, especially a member that, once admitted, cannot be fired. at the very least you have to believe the new prof will bring something new to the table, will bring prestige, etc… all of these things are beliefs that are personal from the POV of the people voting…

@ teo ;) i love to quote this paragraph from a piece by blogger blackshama, also a u.p. prof, that he posted sa FV long before randy david declared intent to run. http://filipinovoices.com/the-centennial-partys-over-and-now-comes-the-hard-part

“At UP Diliman … “tenure problem controversies” are often observed at the College of Social Science and Philosophy. The reason as some CSSP insiders say is that decisions are often influenced by ideological persuations. Now Raymundo is a known ”tibak”. I wonder why this tibak got the ire of UP’s homegrown “fascists”? Now it should be that in an academic community, tenure should be determined by one’s academic standing. It should matter not if one is a Marxist, Maoist, Fascist, Atheist, Opus Dei, ADD, Iglesia ni Cristo, Born Again, Catolico Sarado, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Metrosexual, Heterosexual etc.”

makes me wonder about randy’s “new politics.” hindi naman siguro “fascist”. maybe just an establishment kind of leftist, maybe nga what mong palatino calls a “fashionable ex-radical” in the mold of bobi tiglao, mike defensor, and alex magno? http://www.mongpalatino.us.splinder.com/post/612322/The+Other+Radicals

@ina, thanks also for the clarifications. mas malinaw na ngayon. tama ang sabi mo, kalialangan ng transparency sa usaping ito.